Bray v. State
| Decision Date | 29 January 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. A--14573,A--14573 |
| Citation | 450 P.2d 512 |
| Parties | Frederick Douglas BRAY, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County; Boston W. Smith, judge.
Frederick Douglas Bray was convicted of the crime of Shooting with Intent to Kill, and appeals. Affirmed.
Don Anderson, Public Defender, Oklahoma County, for plaintiff in error.
G. T. Blankenship, Atty. Gen., Charles L. Owens, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
Plaintiff in error, Frederick Douglas Bray, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, was charged by information in the District Court of Oklahoma County with the crime of Shooting with Intent to Kill. He was tried by a jury, found guilty, and sentenced to 20 years in the penitentiary. From this judgment and sentence he has appealed to this Court.
From the record filed herein, it appears that on April 7, 1967, at about 5:30 A.M., a Safeway tractor-trailer truck was proceeding north on Lindsay in Oklahoma City. This truck was driven by Jack Ledford, and his helper was Richard McFarland. In the vicinity of 10th and Lindsay, they noticed a car following them, blinking its lights, and giving the appearance of wanting to pass. The car followed the truck to 24th and Lindsay, where it passed the truck, pulled over in front of it, and caused the truck to stop. Three negroes were in the front seat of the car. The one on the right, identified as the defendant, got out, climbed up on the left running board of the truck with a pistol and after a few words, demanded that Ledford descend. Upon his refusal, defendant shot Ledford five times from a range of two feet. Ledford was shot in the mouth, in the neck, in the left arm, in the elbow, and in the side. Ledford identified the defendant as his assailant. He also stated the pistol looked like the weapon used. McFarland, Ledford's helper who was also wounded, identified the defendant and the weapon.
Harold Akerson, one of the three negroes in the car, testified that he was in the car with the defendant and another boy. That they stopped the truck, and the defendant got out, went over to the truck and said something to them, which he could not clearly make out. He stated he then heard 4 or 5 shots. That defendant Bray came back to the car and stated, 'They were both dead'. Akerson further testified that Bray had the gun on him in the car before they stopped the truck, and that he had told them he got it from 'some policeman in Kansas City'. Akerson further identified the gun and the defendant as one and the same.
The State introduced the gun as Exhibit 1, and called upon the testimony of Robert Thornburg, a Kansas City police officer, who identified the exhibit as his service revolver which was taken from him in a robbery. He identified the defendant as the person who took the gun fron him.
It is the testimony of this witness, Robert Thornburg, to which defendant objects. He contends that to admit the testimony of another crime in Kansas City was error.
While this Court agrees with the general proposition that evidence of separate and independent crimes is inadmissible to prove the guilt of a person on trial for a criminal offense, we have also stated in many instances that evidence of other offenses may be admitted where there is a logical connection with the offense charged, or where the evidence is within a specific exception to the general exclusionary rule.
In the instant case,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas v. State
...between the crimes. See Burks v. State, Okl.Cr., 594 P.2d 771 (1979); Buchanan v. State, Okl.Cr., 483 P.2d 1180 (1971); Bray v. State, Okl.Cr., 450 P.2d 512 (1969); Roulston v. State, supra; Wollaston v. State, Okl.Cr., 358 P.2d 1111 (1961). In Wollaston, supra, the Court recognized the imp......
-
State v. Watson
...proof of crimes other than the one with which the defendant is charged. State v. Hudgens (1967), 102 Ariz. 1, 423 P.2d 90; Bray v. State (Okl.1969), 450 P.2d 512. Furthermore, the state of the evidence here as to the charge in the indictment was such that the evidence of prior criminal acts......
-
Hodge v. State, F-86-697
...the charged offense would never have been discovered. This "logical connection" itself would justify admission. See, e.g., Bray v. State, 450 P.2d 512 (Okl.Cr.1969). This testimony was also needed initially to show the trial court that the warrantless search in which the evidence was seized......
-
Bruner v. State
...there is a "logical connection" with the offense charged, evidence of separate and independent crimes may be admitted. Bray v. State, Okl.Cr., 450 P.2d 512 (1969). More recently in Burks v. State, Okl.Cr., 594 P.2d 771 (1979), we reaffirmed our earlier rule that for "evidence of other offen......